[ZASHAGALKA]

Let's be clear here: a majority of American would support paying higher taxes to ensure that everybody is covered, if THAT's what you mean by 'universal care'.

If you mean gov't controlled, single payor care, no. Once it is explained to people that gov't restricted care is LESS care for them, for MORE money in order to cover everybody, people aren't nearly so generous, either with their money, or their availability to seek care.

THIS IS EXACTLY what happened in '93. All the platitudes about everything-for-nothing fell through. You can always promise that with the stroke of a pen and a gov't monopoly, the sky will rain manna. Better care for less money. Isn't that the pollyanna version of universal care.

Except.

Except.

Enough people have more sense than that and actually examine what is being traded with a critical lens. What is being traded isn't just more taxes. If that were it, this poll would be relevant. No. What is being traded is access to the best healthcare system in the world for a fair share in a dismal outcome.

It won't sell. It didn't sell. It's been tried. More than once. Platitudes are one thing. Get down to specifics and have a real debate about what you want to actually give up in the name of gov't restricted care, and THEN poll. It's a loser.

I'll gladly go into 2008 with the Democrats trying to figure out how to tax the 'rich' for all this stuff that can't be paid for by any other means than defining the middle class as rich. The last time the true far left owned their candidate and he was brave enough to admit the amount of taxation it had in mind, Ronald Reagan carried 49 states.

And here comes Charlie Rangal, with JUST that amount of taxation in mind. On cue, Hillary waffles and triangulates. . .

2008 is starting to look pretty good for Republicans. I'd MUCH rather have the conservative position on this issue. In fact, I'm a conservative BECAUSE conservative means caring. . .

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

My husbands medicare provides great service. he can choose his doctor. They pay in a timely manner.

They only pay 80% so he has a supplemental policy for the 20% Medicare doesn't pay.

So I think we could insure younger people who are not permanently disabled at less average cost than those currently covered by Medicare. And pay 100%.
I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect but it also wouldn't be for profit. No advertising and lobbying budget.

Your husband's great care is unsustainable. Even Viking, in his thread about social security, admits that unfunded entitlements such as Medicare is the must larger danger.

So tell me, how do we greatly expand a program that is quickly leading the gov't to bankruptcy?

I know the answer.

Ration care and cut healthcare salaries. Both only possible with a gov't run monopoly.

It's that simple.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

What cheap shots are you referring too? Or is that one of the left's typical diversionary tactics when you cannot stand by your ideas with facts?

CRNA2007,

I agree with your assessment. It is a bit ironic that the very poster who cuts and pastes endless writings to support his positions can only vaguely identify the vitriolic and objectionable cheap shots by stating that they were written in other similar threads.

[happydays352]

"2008 is starting to look pretty good for Republicans. I'd MUCH rather have the conservative position on this issue. In fact, I'm a conservative BECAUSE conservative means caring. . ."

Conservatives and Liberals are the same in politics
Politicians are politicians they don't CARE about PEOPLE


I see virtually no difference between the two parties actual actions, we might as well have a one party system.

After traveling and living abroad for most of my life I'm against the idea of health care system like Canada's. Most Canadians I've spoken to are dissatisfied with their health care system.
That being said the health care system here isn't working either.
God just reading this thread makes me depressed.

[Alois Wolf]

Yeah... even though I consider myself pretty liberal in my own right, I'm very non-partisan and I will vote for whoever I think will get the job done. Republican, Democrat, Independent or even Green...

[CRNA2007]

Please tell me who is more selfish. Those who continually pay a greater burden of the taxes in this country or those who continually reap those taxes without contributing to them?

Originally Posted by leslymill

Your right they are too selfish and don't care if some people can't make a desent living. It is just more important that they live high on the hog.

[CRNA2007]

It won't be only slightly higher try double or triple. Are you willing to pay that? Be careful what you ask Hillary for you just may get it.

Originally Posted by Alois Wolf

I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes for National Universal Health Care than what I'm paying right now for Aetna HMO.

[Alois Wolf]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

It won't be only slightly higher try double or triple. Are you willing to pay that? Be careful what you ask Hillary for you just may get it.

Well... I would go for it if it seemed reasonable to me... obviously if it's going to triple what I'm already paying in taxes at more cost than what I'm already spending now for health insurance... then of course I wouldn't endorse it... also if it didn't seem like a logical thing for the majority of the middle-class... and even those below the poverty line, what is the point in having it at all?
But I believe it can work, if they do it correctly. I know in Germany (which has a higher cost-of-living than the US btw) has Universal Health Care and it works well. My sister can attest to that, she has more medical issues than anyone in my family. (My family is from Germany, however I live with foster parents in the US... long story.) I think what we should be concentrating on first, however, is the fact that the income-gap hasn't been this wide since the 1930's.

[Alois Wolf]

On second thought...


I don't know... it's tough. The government can't set money aside because there is already so much in SS, which by any chance probably won't be there by the time I reach retirement. The national debt is excess of 9 trillion so the only logical thing to do would raise taxes. But how much would it actually cost to insure the entire population of the US? Is it even possible for UHC to work, if not by taxing it's citizens? I think it's one of those situations that is ideal... and has worked for other countries in the past and may work for the US in the future, but since we have let it go on for so long, I don't think it's possible or even prudent. I think if we concentrate on the income gap, those who have no insurance would be able to afford it. And those who still would not be able to, there should be some sort of plan in place the ensure that everyone's well being is taken care of... unless you think like a Darwinist or believe in population control... but that's a horse of a whole different color.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

It won't be only slightly higher try double or triple. Are you willing to pay that?

Source for doubling/trebling our taxes if a universal or single-payer plan is enacted. Thanks.